Comments: Disaster on a Global Scale

I read with dismay the article in Saturday's Advertiser "Disaster on aGlobal Scale". Particularly worrying was the statement by Environment andHeritage CEO, Allan Holmes:

"The science says it may be best to bioremediate than let in seawater. Itcould do more damage if we let in seawater".

What "science" is he referring to? Could it be that promulgated by thewell-meaning, but ill-informed groups who advocate a fresh water solution atall costs? As a retired aquatic biology scientist, I am aware of quite afew other reputable scientists who believe that the solution to the presentcrisis is to open the barrages to the sea, and let the system return to anestuarine condition, the natural state before the barrages were built. Farfrom causing damage, this would stop the further development of acidsulphate soils which are now reaching crisis levels. As well, a new,fluctuating marine/freshwater system would develop to include seagrassmeadows supporting fish nurseries, and migratory birds etc. Our Ramsarobligations would then be modified to accommodate the changed wetlandecology (www.ramsar.org). This is a far cry from the total destruction ofvirtually all living things in the system if the lakes continue to acidify.There is not enough fresh water to mitigate this, and it is irresponsible toallow the little that we do have to spread over the lakes surface andevaporate (www.lakesneedwater.org).

Bioremediation and liming of the vast lakes area is slow and expensive, andwould likely not work in the longer term, since it would only treat the topfew cm of soil. The sediments containing sulphides are metres deep, justwaiting to oxidise to sulphuric acid should the plants die from salinity,high temperatures, lack of rainfall, or even the acid itself. Theproduction of lime is very greenhouse unfriendly, since it involves theheating of limestone to release carbon dioxide, leaving the calcium oxide(lime).

Your own editorial in the same edition mentioned CSIRO work indicating thatthe seawater solution is the only practical one available; however, Idisagree that it would be a disaster for freshwater plants and animals.These would migrate or decrease naturally, and be replaced by salt-tolerantspecies, of which there are numerous examples existing right now around thelakes. Just think of the Gippsland lakes as examples of what could happen.

To be so heavily influenced by certain groups which are particularly vocal,this government could be shooting itself in the foot if the present trendscontinue. I ask them to consider what will happen to the vines in placeslike Langhorne Creek when they are covered with toxic, acidic dust blown infrom the surface of the dry lake beds?